Two of the three companies naming vertical's ad money file it

The figure or the record

Meta's quarterly report for the period ended 30 June 2026, filed with the SEC on 30 July 2026, states advertising revenue of $59,363 million for the second quarter of 2026, up from $46,563 million a year earlier. Alphabet's equivalent filing, filed 23 July 2026 for the same quarter, breaks out 'YouTube ads' revenue of $11,055 million, within total Google advertising revenue of $81,629 million. Separately, consultancy Owl & Co's Streamonomics newsletter, dated 19 August 2026, poses the estimate that three companies 'own 94%' of what it frames as a $150 billion vertical video economy.

What the documents establish

The two filings establish, in each company's own reported currency and period, that Meta's Facebook-and-Instagram advertising and Alphabet's YouTube advertising are each multi-billion-dollar quarterly lines, disclosed with an exact figure because both are public companies under SEC reporting rules. Owl & Co's newsletter adds the framing that a third company, named elsewhere in the same document as ByteDance, is one of 'three companies' capturing the bulk of a vertical-video total the firm itself models, not measures from filings. The newsletter's specific breakdown by company is behind a paid subscription; the public excerpt states the 94 percent headline without a stated method or per-company split.

Scope and caveats

Meta's and Alphabet's figures are audited, filed, and cover named legal entities' total advertising revenue — not vertical video alone, since Meta discloses Reels revenue nowhere separately and Alphabet discloses YouTube ads as a single line that includes both Shorts and long-form video. ByteDance is privately held and files no equivalent public disclosure, so the 94 percent claim about three companies rests on two measured figures and one estimate for the third; the ledger cannot verify ByteDance's advertising revenue from a company filing because none exists.

What to watch

Editorially, the gap between two SEC-filed numbers and one consultancy estimate for the third company is the central caveat here: any total that adds all three into a single 'vertical ad revenue' figure is combining disclosure types. Watching whether Owl & Co's full client report, or any ByteDance-adjacent filing (such as a bond prospectus), ever states a comparable per-company figure would close that gap.

• Does a cited 'vertical ad revenue' total mix filed figures for two companies with a modelled figure for a third, without saying so?
• Is the YouTube ads or Meta advertising line being read as vertical-only, when the filing states it covers all formats?
• Has Owl & Co, or any other firm, published its method for the 94 percent estimate beyond the newsletter's teaser?

Naming three companies as owning most of a market is only as strong as the weakest figure behind it, and here two of the three numbers are filed while the third is modelled.